In the 1926 case of Tumey v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's right to due process is violated if their trial is overseen by a judge who has a direct financial interest in convicting them. The case arose when Frank Tumey was convicted for violating Prohibition laws in North College Hill, Ohio and fined $100; part of this fine went directly to the mayor who served as his judge. The court held that such an arrangement created an unconstitutional conflict of interest because it gave judges incentive to find defendants guilty regardless of their actual guilt or innocence.

In the dissenting opinion for Tumey v. Ohio, Justice Sanford argued that there was no violation of due process in this case. He contended that the mayor's dual role as judge and beneficiary from fines imposed did not necessarily imply bias or partiality. The mere possibility of bias should not be enough to invalidate a judicial proceeding; actual proof of prejudice is necessary. Furthermore, he pointed out that many judges receive salaries funded by court-imposed fines and fees, yet their impartiality is never questioned simply because they indirectly benefit financially from convictions. In his view, it would set a dangerous precedent to assume potential financial gain automatically equates to judicial corruption or unfairness without concrete evidence supporting such claims.